Subject: Re: Cygwin participation threshold
From: "Christopher G. Faylor" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 16:22:08 -0800

>From: Steve Morris <[email-masked]>
>Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:55:50 -0500 (EST)
>
>In all this discussion something important is being lost. Cris
>bemoaned the lack of development support for cygwin and asked for
>reasons. I and others tried to explain where we think the issues
>are. Inevitably this comes out sounding negative, but at least on my
>part, this is not intended. Maybe we took Cris' questions too
>literally. Flogging Cygnus was not the intent. We were trying to offer
>legitimate feedback to a legitimate question.
>
>Let me reiterate that Cygnus is clearly one of the Good Guys. The best
>guys are the Cygnus employees (like Cris) who volunteer their own time
>to this project.
>
>Many of us are rooting for Cygnus and are hoping more companies figure
>out how to make money on free software; because they then tend to give
>back. As an example gcc and gdb have been in much better shape all
>these years since Cygnus became the official release site.

Thanks very much for this positive note.

I was hoping that my original message would generate a lot of discussion
because I thought that it would give DJ and myself an opportunity to
explain something about Cygnus/Cygwin as well as providing a venue
for everyone else to provide their outlook.

It may not be obvious but I do appreciate any and all feedback on this
issue.  It certainly helps educate me on people's perception of my
company and my product.  I do want to understand what people think
about this.

That doesn't mean that I won't argue with perceptions that I think
are wrong but I certainly respect everyone's right to an opinion.

Again, thanks to you and to the handful of other people who sent me
private supportive email.  I appreciate it.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to [email-masked]